Capitalism Vs. Socialism in the UK

The state is socialism and socialism is the state.
The state is not capitalist.

Smashing the state smashs socialism and not capitalism.

Capitalism is the realm of the private individual.


No matter what party gets in, government is socialist.

 

Well now! That is quite a frenzied rant. Those are usually caused by an awareness of facing a losing battle with no good alternatives and knowing one is wrong. Fortunately such people are a small, insignificant few. That's ok. The rest of us will handle it.

 

If we are so small and insignificant in number, how come you can't win an election?

Sorry. We rule here. You never will.

And the reason we rule here is because we seek to only rule over ourselves.
And the reason you will never rule here is because you seek to rule over others.

But I don't need to be in majority and nor do you because this society respects the rights of minorities. Respects their rights to live how they please as long as they cause no harm to others.

So you are free to help the homeless just as I am free not to.
Carry on. Do whatever makes you feel more superior to me.

The idea that you in any way speak for the nation however, will be greeted with raucous laughter only.

 

Let's be clear. You are referring to my post right above yours. And in relation to my post, who do you mean by "we" and who do you mean by "you"?

"WE" - those few who have "an awareness of facing a losing battle with no good alternatives and knowing one is wrong" in a debate.

"YOU" - "the rest of us".

Now go rethink your reply.

 

So you just want to be left alone and keep to yourself without interference and the same for others as long as no one is harming anyone else.

Do you think abortion should be legal at all?

 

No, it's not. The state is the state.

 

Yes, you see, that sort of confusion is not uncommon. It's the basic and foolish notion that the state machinery is independent of the economy and just sort of "floats" there being a state. In this fantasy the government can simply choose to do what it wants or what is best. It can support and enable the economy, or it can replace it with a different economy and the rich and powerful can do nothing about it.

It is one of the more profound types of ignorance due to brainwashing propaganda that is found. Baff is a perfectly nice person, but deeply affected by propaganda as many are.

 

We, those who do not seek to be part of your utopia.

You, you personally.

 

The state in this country controls about 40% of the economy.
Far from the rest of the country being separate to it, the rest of the country is monopolised by it.

The state however cannot use that monopoly to ride roughshod over the other 60% in any way it pleases, enforcing socialism for example, because we will just kill them.

There are many limits to the power of the state over the nation.
I am one such limit.

Personally speaking, I don't find the state to be a significant part of my own economy. I have little use for it.

 

The state is a socialist institution.

I could argue that it is a private institution and that the Queen owns it, which technically she does, but in effect it has been socialised. To all intents and purposes it is collectively owned and operated.

 

Pretty much.
I'm not planning on confining my actions to myself. I can do, I often do, but I am a social animal by nature.
There are an abundance of like minded people in the world for me to consensually co-operate with. No need for either I nor you to be alone. You can have your co-op and I can have mine and there is no reason at all why the two of us should ever meet or otherwise interact. The world is a very large place.

Abortion? Don't much care.
I am born to a society in which Abortion is OK.
I am a product of the machine. It doesn't affect me so I have had no reason to question this.
Catholic's don't like it.

You are welcome to abort or not abort as you prefer. No harm done to me either way.

In Orwells Animal Farm, I self identify with the character "Boxer". The horse.
He tirelessly labours hard than all the others to achieve the common goal.
But when he gets old and broken from his efforts, he is not put out to pasture. He is fed to the dogs.

And so I will never participate with socialists. I will not work for you.
It's not just that I don't share your dream...
I do not like your dream. So I will not even co-operate with you.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and you were in charge, I truly believe you would criminalise me.

I'm not included in your utopian society.
It is self defeat to help you build it. A Darwin Award.

Our ambitions are in conflict. it is best we live apart.
So you do your thing and I do mine and as long as we both respect that, we can live as neighbours side by side on the same street. In peace and good will with the world.
My economy and your economy not particularly linked at all.

 

Truth is, that is all your personal, tangled and deeply confused fantasy.

 

And yet I am still here.
I still live here.

And you still have to live with me.
So you don't have to agree with me, you don't have to respect me, but you will still be putting up with me.

And this... is the essence of liberalism. The anti-thesis of socialism.
It's historical nemesis.


I side with those who don't wish to be ruled over those who wish for rule, by default.
I am liberal. This is a liberal country. It is to liberalism what Russia is to Socialism.


You have your fantasy, I have mine.
I don't think we're going to be the ones to burst each others bubbles, personally.

 

Poverty is a good gauge. Social Democracy tends to ensure the lowest poverty rates. Then comes Liberal Democracy. Then comes Britain. The nature of Britain's inequalities makes it a class apart.

You're also making inappropriate remark over socialism. For example, market socialism can easily be integrated within the libertarian skipping of Austrian Economics (given its focus on worker ownership as a a means to avoid coercion, plus celebration of individual entrepreneurial spirit)

 

As I see it Britain is about as equal a society as there is in the world. As classless as there is. Top ranking.

And there is no poverty here worth a mention. Far from it. Comically, some one on benefits can earn the average wage here, making them 5%ers.
At the Daily Mailesque extremes of our system, our poor = 5%ers world wide.
So cry me a river for the poor. Been there, seen it, done it. And hey, it's not so bad.

Class division in the UK.
I live in a mansion and I work beside a guy who lives in a caravan. Side by side in the same job. Piikee and posh boy.
I studied at Cambridge, he didn't study much at all.

And that is what Class is here.
To have class, you have to be classless.
Having a beer down the pub with my new mate. Who turns out to be the Viscount. Who knew?
Why did no one know? Because he's got class.

If I wanted to give example of poverty and class division, I would choose Rumania.
Social democracy?
Or India. Liberal Democracy?

Born with ginger hair Rumanian girls? No man will touch you. Gypsy.
Run out of money gyspy girl, rent your children out to truck drivers.
What about Mexico? Cripple your child so he can make more money begging.
Oh yeah. Poverty. I've seen it but never round here.




America is the richest society in the world. They are Liberal Democrats.
In the UK's peak of liberalism, it too was the richest society on earth.

That said it might just be that Russia got significantly richer under socialism.
So I'm not really going to attribute a nations wealth and output to the work undertaken by fat arsed politicians in fat arsed chairs in palaces.
I'll tell you the truth, none of the credit is theirs. None of it. The opposite is more true.

So.
Each to his own.
If social democracy has made you richer, carry on.
As long as it doesn't affect me, I don't mind what you believe or do.



Market socialism is integral to the UK economy. There is no getting round it. There is no free market. There never has been and there never will be. It's a hypothetic construct only. Like Schrodinger's Cat.
Man's nature will not allow for it. Tyrants will always emerge.

 

Then why do most Western countries have lower poverty rates, low income inequalities and higher social mobility?

Free markets are neither achievable or desirable. But you can't use that to refer to socialism. The economic spectrum, ranging from free to command economy, have nothing to do with socialist political economy. They merely reflect the nature of government interventionism. Socialism has to refer to worker ownership and control of the means of production.

 

The key here is most "western" countries.

You have excluded the rest of the world from your comparison and hence are getting a skewed perspective.
By only comparing yourself with say the top ten richest countries in the world, you are simply splitting hairs.
There are another 260 to compare with too.

Basically, it's a abuse of statistics. A lie used to promote a political agenda that will benefit the person promoting it.
A politician says it's his fault I am richer, and his rivals fault when I am poorer.
But the truth is, he costs me a fortune to employ and that makes me poorer. Whatever faction he is from.



I consider government intervention to be the hall mark of socialism.
"Free market" is useful as an academic tool to understanding human behaviour. Economics is the study of human behaviour.

In liberalism, I am the means of production and I control myself.
My human labour is mine to trade and mine alone. I am a free man. Beholden to no one.

 

So while The Free Market doesn't actually exist and never ever has or will do, the human behaviour described by it, does exist and always has and always will.

 

This is an interesting one. We like to think that human nature is automatically related to homo economicus, that great dominates and that isn't a bad thing because of the wonders of the invisible hand. But of course we're very much more complex than that. Take Adam Smith, who has been unfairly pigeonholed by the invisible hand tag. He referred to how our behaviour is constrained by a desire to be accepted. We won't act callously like 'rational economic man' as we're social beasts.

 

Some of us will, either by accident or design, but I feel the 80% outweighs the 20%.

I am very constrained by a desire to be accepted myself. Not wholly, but very.
I don't think criminals rule here. I think by and large decent people do.


The danger for me with economics is when it is used to predict human behaviour and not just describe it.
Because of Economics Rule 101, such and such a result will occur.
And then it doesn't. Because humans are unpredictable like that.

I looked at the Bank of England's forecast last week.
Mr Carney. Very smart guy, always on message with the govt of the day.

He is a professional tea leaf reader. He makes stuff up.
And econobabbles to reinforce it.
But statistics tell the story the statistician wants them to tell. Nothing more.
Nothing he says makes me more or less likely to undertake any economic activity of course. I am too small a minnow to care I expect.

 

That's certainly a relevant observation. Take something like game theory (used by the likes of the US to determine which city to destroy with nuclear weapon). Its used to try and determine best outcome given the difficulties associated with interaction. However, there is some evidence that, by trying to predict behaviour, it actually distorts it (i.e. someone educated in game theory could be more likely to act selfishly than everyday Joe Public)

Its better than it was. Prior to the financial crisis, macroeconomists had convinced themselves that they understood the economy...

 

I use statistics for gambling.
So there are smart ways things can be manipulated and it doesn't really hurt to try since ultimately the results will be quite random.

Trend spotting is a valuable mercantile skill.

The law of un-intended consequences. If you put up parking prices, less shoppers come. Less cars are bought.
The act of manipulating the marked, distorts it. And me, I'm bloody minded.
So if you attempt to manipulate me in any way, change my way of life to your preferred way, I simply rebel.
Ban smoking, I invent vapping. etc.

People are resistant to change. And smart enough to know when they are being messed around. They become uncooperative.


It's kind of an arms race.
A battle for power between people and palace.
No side can win. But no side can afford to lose either. So they will always fight on.


Acting selfishly.
Highly judgemental appraisal.
I don't think any two people in the world will be able to exactly agree on exactly what constitutes acting selfishly or that anyone other than the actual people involved will have greater understanding of their own motives than they.

This is too much for me. I'll leave god to make those kind of judgements on people.
I do not trust anyone to make that kind of decision on me or any of my loved ones.
I'm quite big on leaving the morals out of politics. Let the Vicar have his bone.

 

But this arguably refers to a game changer now. Folk are miffed at getting nothing and being arrogantly information that everything is tickety-boo. We saw that with Brexit. We saw that with Labour rejecting the Blairites. We will perhaps see it with the first genuine social democrat government in our lifetime...

Interesting times!

 

SNAFU.